Edited by Steve Bamlett, Tuesday, 14 Jun 2016, 15:49
Part 1
Consider how the uses
identified in Bakharia et. al.(2009:49) of SLN support teaching & learning
(TL) and identify any problems.
What a SLN chart can do?
How used
Any problems
identify disconnected (at risk) students
These
learners appear to be the ones who give tutors a ‘hard time’ because they ‘report
high levels of dissatisfaction in course and teaching evaluations’ (Dawson
et. 2010:131). This is a very convenient method of alert to this and will
prompt action.
But what
action? It feels to me that it is possible that it will appear to be the
student who is ‘the problem’. Certainly the ethical issues of the singling
out (and possible scapegoating process) are not discussed.
identify key information brokers within a class
Clearly if
a learner node is ‘dominant’ in mediating and initiating interactions then
this fact will be useful. However, how will the information be interpreted?
Again,
this sounds like a means of prescribing group behaviour and adjusting
individuals who do not fit in with that behaviour. I was horrified when this
was done to me. I consider it highly unethical unless much more open to scrutiny
and monitor. If the learners aren’t themselves centrally involved (which they
should be – do not do it!).
identify potentially high and low performing students so teachers can
better plan learning interventions
This has
always been a goal of good pedagogy and enables differentiation of teaching
method and content. Here it could help where the differences relate to high
granularity issue – like comparative pace through course materials.
SNAPP as
described does not give any way near enough information. Strength – number of
interactions. Any teacher using that formula f2f would be rightly despised.
Moreover, the information is not as finely grained as it would need to be to
make these judgements. Some qualitative follow up would be needed to justify
action.
indicate the extent to which a learning community is developing
within a class
It shows
patterns of interaction and that might identify democratic working and the
problems ’associated with a central actor’ (Dawson et. al 2010:130) in
disrupting community centrism.
This
identification is based it would appear on research but it predicates a role
for the teacher of group intervention that is difficult to think through
ethically. Of more concern is that these writers don’t seem to want to consider
the ethics of their certainties about what is good and bad interaction and
its link to other pedagogic variables.
provide a “before and after” snapshot of the various interactions
occurring pre and post learning interventions.
This seems
to me an acceptable use provided learners know that is routine. I would
confine its usefulness to description of the effects of different
interventions for the sake of future planning of learning activities.
If this is
used as a tool to identify ‘troublemakers’, it is full of problems – evident from
what I say above.
provide timely opportunity for students to benchmark individual
performance and engagement against fellow peers.
I am not
sure that knowing where you are relative to ‘peers’ is really useful –
although it certainly feeds the ideology of competitive individualism.
What are
we trying to teach people? Be better than everyone else?
Part 2 Draw a SLN
graph for a recent forum on H817 with at least 6 contributions. How does it
help in understanding the group and my own role? Are there misleading elements
in it?
I am
disturbed to be asked to do this. I dropped out of Block 3 entirely because it
involved agreeing to myself or another taking roles in group work that I
consider oppressive and unnecessary. Certainly, for me they would be stressful
ones – mainly about progress-chasing (called ‘managing’) the product’s
co-production and observing and reporting back on other group members’
behaviour.
This
exercise asks me to pick an interaction with colleagues and to report on my own
and others’ behaviour. I am happy to reflect on my own behaviour in a safe
space or in a space where it is my choice whether I expose myself to others. I
will NOT observe others without asking their permission and initiating ethical
safeguards because my social behaviour is largely guided by a principle I'd call 'regulative empathy' (which requires trust unlike monitoring) as the means by which groups gain enough confidence in each other
sufficient for truly collaborative work. This exercise feels like another extension of
the top-down corporate ideology that sustains this module.
However, I
do see that the exercise could have a purpose for me. It would expose evidence
of the lack of finesse in the observed categories of SLN (like the category ‘actor’
which disposes of invisible human functions like ‘passive listening’ at a
stroke) and the distance between the evidence thus collected and the purposes
it ought to serve (assisting groups and individuals to learn in ways they chose
to learn). Moreover, it lacks any rounded sense of the complex beings that
human learners are.
Psychologists,
social workers and health researchers would not commit the gross infringements
of confidentiality, informed consent and group integrity involved here. I have
often thought that teaching should, like those professions, be a regulated one –
bound by a code of conduct. Despite being resistant to that idea – this module
has convinced me of its necessity.
Dawson, S., Bakharia, A., & Heathcote, E. (2010) ‘SNAPP:
Realising the affordances of real-time SNA within networked learning
environments’ in Dirckink-Holmfield, L., Hodgson, V., Jones, C., de Laat, M.,
McConnell, D ( Ryberg, T. (Eds.) Proceedings 7th Annual Conf. on Networked
Learning 2010
Visualising Social Networks Activity 14 Block 4
Part 1
Consider how the uses identified in Bakharia et. al.(2009:49) of SLN support teaching & learning (TL) and identify any problems.
What a SLN chart can do?
How used
Any problems
identify disconnected (at risk) students
These learners appear to be the ones who give tutors a ‘hard time’ because they ‘report high levels of dissatisfaction in course and teaching evaluations’ (Dawson et. 2010:131). This is a very convenient method of alert to this and will prompt action.
But what action? It feels to me that it is possible that it will appear to be the student who is ‘the problem’. Certainly the ethical issues of the singling out (and possible scapegoating process) are not discussed.
identify key information brokers within a class
Clearly if a learner node is ‘dominant’ in mediating and initiating interactions then this fact will be useful. However, how will the information be interpreted?
Again, this sounds like a means of prescribing group behaviour and adjusting individuals who do not fit in with that behaviour. I was horrified when this was done to me. I consider it highly unethical unless much more open to scrutiny and monitor. If the learners aren’t themselves centrally involved (which they should be – do not do it!).
identify potentially high and low performing students so teachers can better plan learning interventions
This has always been a goal of good pedagogy and enables differentiation of teaching method and content. Here it could help where the differences relate to high granularity issue – like comparative pace through course materials.
SNAPP as described does not give any way near enough information. Strength – number of interactions. Any teacher using that formula f2f would be rightly despised. Moreover, the information is not as finely grained as it would need to be to make these judgements. Some qualitative follow up would be needed to justify action.
indicate the extent to which a learning community is developing within a class
It shows patterns of interaction and that might identify democratic working and the problems ’associated with a central actor’ (Dawson et. al 2010:130) in disrupting community centrism.
This identification is based it would appear on research but it predicates a role for the teacher of group intervention that is difficult to think through ethically. Of more concern is that these writers don’t seem to want to consider the ethics of their certainties about what is good and bad interaction and its link to other pedagogic variables.
provide a “before and after” snapshot of the various interactions occurring pre and post learning interventions.
This seems to me an acceptable use provided learners know that is routine. I would confine its usefulness to description of the effects of different interventions for the sake of future planning of learning activities.
If this is used as a tool to identify ‘troublemakers’, it is full of problems – evident from what I say above.
provide timely opportunity for students to benchmark individual performance and engagement against fellow peers.
I am not sure that knowing where you are relative to ‘peers’ is really useful – although it certainly feeds the ideology of competitive individualism.
What are we trying to teach people? Be better than everyone else?
Part 2 Draw a SLN graph for a recent forum on H817 with at least 6 contributions. How does it help in understanding the group and my own role? Are there misleading elements in it?
I am disturbed to be asked to do this. I dropped out of Block 3 entirely because it involved agreeing to myself or another taking roles in group work that I consider oppressive and unnecessary. Certainly, for me they would be stressful ones – mainly about progress-chasing (called ‘managing’) the product’s co-production and observing and reporting back on other group members’ behaviour.
This exercise asks me to pick an interaction with colleagues and to report on my own and others’ behaviour. I am happy to reflect on my own behaviour in a safe space or in a space where it is my choice whether I expose myself to others. I will NOT observe others without asking their permission and initiating ethical safeguards because my social behaviour is largely guided by a principle I'd call 'regulative empathy' (which requires trust unlike monitoring) as the means by which groups gain enough confidence in each other sufficient for truly collaborative work. This exercise feels like another extension of the top-down corporate ideology that sustains this module.
However, I do see that the exercise could have a purpose for me. It would expose evidence of the lack of finesse in the observed categories of SLN (like the category ‘actor’ which disposes of invisible human functions like ‘passive listening’ at a stroke) and the distance between the evidence thus collected and the purposes it ought to serve (assisting groups and individuals to learn in ways they chose to learn). Moreover, it lacks any rounded sense of the complex beings that human learners are.
Psychologists, social workers and health researchers would not commit the gross infringements of confidentiality, informed consent and group integrity involved here. I have often thought that teaching should, like those professions, be a regulated one – bound by a code of conduct. Despite being resistant to that idea – this module has convinced me of its necessity.
Bakharia, A., Heathcote, E. & Dawson, S. (2009) ‘Social Networks adapting pedagogical practice: SNAPP’ in Proceedings Ascilite Auckland 2009: Poster Available from: http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/auckland09/pocs/bakharia-poster.pdf (Accessed 14/06/2016)
Dawson, S., Bakharia, A., & Heathcote, E. (2010) ‘SNAPP: Realising the affordances of real-time SNA within networked learning environments’ in Dirckink-Holmfield, L., Hodgson, V., Jones, C., de Laat, M., McConnell, D ( Ryberg, T. (Eds.) Proceedings 7th Annual Conf. on Networked Learning 2010